News about the nuclear bomb in 1945

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > News about the nuclear bomb in 1945

Nude Bog Lurker: Jan 2, 2007; Fun Shoe

Chomskyan posted:

This may come as a shock to serial war crime apologist Fojar38, but it is in fact possible to win a war without comitting war crimes. Notice for example that the war in Germany was mostly* won without deliberate mass killings of civilians.

*exceptions exist, for example Dresden

Oddly enough, your go-to example is the exact some one the Nazi proanganda machine seized on as 'evidence' of Allied barbarity. Funny, that.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2016 09:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 19, 2024 19:39

Nude Bog Lurker: Jan 2, 2007; Fun Shoe

Chomskyan posted:

OK, you're right. I was talking about the Western front. You still don't need war crimes to win a war if somebody else on your side is committing them anyway.

Fixed this for you.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2016 10:01

Nude Bog Lurker: Jan 2, 2007; Fun Shoe

Main Paineframe posted:

"The dismantlement of Hitler's government and the convening of war crimes trials" sounds like a surrender condition, which could easily have been part of a negotiated surrender. Having the Nazi government or Hitler personally take responsibility for the surrender? That's a surrender condition too. A lot can be accomplished with surrender conditions. Historically, a lot has - unconditional surrender demands are the exception, not the rule.

The Allied insistence for unconditional surrender no matter what was actually a huge help to Hitler's government - it dissuaded potential mutinies and rebellions by promising that overthrowing Hitler's government wouldn't change Germany's treatment at the hands of the Allies, and was a huge boon to German propaganda efforts portraying the Allies as bent on destroying Germany as a whole rather than just the Nazi government. By all accounts, Goebbels was a huge fan of the "unconditional surrender" demand - he thought it was a huge boon to the war effort and would help to rally Germans behind the Nazi government.

Do you think the Allies should have occupied Germany at the end of the war? Do you think it was bad that both the FDR and the DDR (for all its other flaws) explicitly disavowed not only Nazism but the German-supremacist beliefs that underpinned it?

# ¿ Oct 28, 2016 21:48

Nude Bog Lurker: Jan 2, 2007; Fun Shoe

Brainiac Five posted:

I don't see where Nazism is implied there. You seem to be an inquisitor under Torquemada, demanding conversos confess to secretly practicing Islam or Judaism, unwilling to concede they might be telling the truth when they deny it.

You seem to have a poorly managed mental illness. It would be interesting to know how Main Paineframe's imagined post-war settlement (in Germany or Japan) would differ from what unconditional surrender enabled.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2016 22:51

Nude Bog Lurker: Jan 2, 2007; Fun Shoe

Main Paineframe posted:

1) Show any willingness at all to negotiate a peace, otherwise continue as usual

2) By the time it is completely obvious that the Eastern Front is a disaster, a military coup of some sort removes Hitler, sues for peace, and agrees to conditions including announcement of surrender, dismantlement of the government, official denouncement of Nazi crimes, war crimes trials, de-Nazification, giving up everything Germany conquered during the war, reparations, etc etc. If they refuse, or if Hitler manages to stay in power, continue steamrolling but continue to indicate that peace is possible in conditions that don't involve Soviet troops raping their way through Berlin

Watch in slack-jawed amazement as new German regime proceeds to breach peace treaty almost as soon as it is signed. Wonder if there was possibly a precedent that could have warned you this would happen. Quietly push 'Weimar Germany and the Treaty of Versailles' under the counch, and start preparing for round 3.

# ¿ Oct 29, 2016 20:36

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > News about the nuclear bomb in 1945